[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
US consumers will be worse off but the country as a whole will be more fiscally stable.

[FloridaGirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')S consumers will be worse off but the country as a whole will be more fiscally stable.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')If you spend 105% of your income, you will accumulate lots of debt but in terms of day-to-day consumption, feel great.

Then if you cut down on the credit cards and spend only 95% of your income (allowing you to pay off the debt over time and build up savings), your day-to-day consumption suffers. However, your long term fiscal stability has improved.

The only way out of this whole is less spending and more saving. This cannot be accomplished without a decrease in consumer spending.

So yes, US consumers will be worse off but the country's long term economic health will be improved.

[Euric]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')This likely means that the US will be able to sustain higher energy prices without risking a complete dollar collapse because its exports are growing faster than its non-oil imports.

US consumers will be worse off but the country as a whole will be more fiscally stable.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nly when the US economy runs a surplus and the American worker makes more then he needs

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
US consumers will be worse off but the country as a whole will be more fiscally stable.

[Gerben]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')f you spend 105% of your income, you will accumulate lots of debt but in terms of day-to-day consumption, feel great.

[Euric]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nly when the US economy runs a surplus and the American worker makes more then he needs

[roccman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
US consumers will be worse off but the country as a whole will be more fiscally stable.

[ALBY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joe wp', ' ')When people are spending 105% of their income on necessary goods like food and heat, then cutting back will entail suffering and possible death

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ALBY', '
')before americans starve or die of exposure, maybe they they will have to cut their cable bill, turn off their cell phones, cancel their broadband, trade in their cadillac escalade, stop eating at mcbarfles, stop gambling at indian casinos, give up their $3 lattes and quit their health club.

[ALBY]

you make me laugh joe wp.

you display some decidely feminine forensic techniques.

[Fiddlerdave]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ALBY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joe wp', ' ')When people are spending 105% of their income on necessary goods like food and heat, then cutting back will entail suffering and possible death

[SteinarN]

The US like the rest of the western industrialized world could easily cut their spending by a large percentage when looking at a country as a whole. However not every citizen could do that without suffering. But the 50% at the top of income could do that easily.

You can have a very good life without a house in excess of several thousand ft2, new suvs, expensive holidays, new x-boxes, and an incredible number of other innecesities.

The top 50% in the US is probably responsible for som 70-80% of the total consumtion. If they reduced their consumtion with 15% as they easily could do the consumtion in US as a whole would be reduced with 11%. (15% of 75) The lowest 50% wouldnt have to reduce their consumtion and no one would have to suffer more than they already do. Many people would loose their jobs, but they could instead get new jobs producing goods for export. And the trade deficit would be turned to a surplus.

This is what every nation have to do in the long run. No one can have a trade deficit for infinite time. Its no way around it. Better start doing it soner than later.

[sjn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SteinarN', 'T')he US like the rest of the western industrialized world could easily cut their spending by a large percentage when looking at a country as a whole. However not every citizen could do that without suffering. But the 50% at the top of income could do that easily.

You can have a very good life without a house in excess of several thousand ft2, new suvs, expensive holidays, new x-boxes, and an incredible number of other innecesities.

The top 50% in the US is probably responsible for som 70-80% of the total consumtion. If they reduced their consumtion with 15% as they easily could do the consumtion in US as a whole would be reduced with 11%. (15% of 75) The lowest 50% wouldnt have to reduce their consumtion and no one would have to suffer more than they already do. Many people would loose their jobs, but they could instead get new jobs producing goods for export. And the trade deficit would be turned to a surplus.

This is what every nation have to do in the long run. No one can have a trade deficit for infinite time. Its no way around it. Better start doing it soner than later.

[SteinarN]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', 'S')ure that's likely to happen... those most financially able to consume cut back while the vulnerable maintain their consumption on wishful thinking.

[Kingcoal]

I'm not surprised by the figures; stagflation tends to do that. Consumers are spending more on living expenses and less on luxuries. Pretty soon, simply owning and operating an automobile will be a luxury. The world economy is headed for a brick wall because it is based on the many producing frivolous products for the few. Our current economy is based on exporting inflation. The problem is not just with the US, but in the exporters of the world who simply can't go on every year cutting prices. Asia's paradigm of growing market share by undercutting competitors is falling apart. Manufacturing requires a lot of hydrocarbons and as those increase (in cost), eventually it won't matter if they work for free, they still won't be able to cut costs because of rising oil bills. The inflation export machine requires that costs be cut yearly, otherwise it falls apart.

It looks to me as if it is falling apart. What’s next?

[DantesPeak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he result is a lower trade deficit DESPITE massively increased oil prices.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
US consumers will be worse off but the country as a whole will be more fiscally stable.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure that's likely to happen... those most financially able to consume cut back while the vulnerable maintain their consumption on wishful thinking.